> Alan Coopersmith <[email protected]> wrote:
>> > CPIO is limited to 8 GB files and the (non-POSIX ... SVR4) CPIO
>> archive format
>> > Solaris is currently using by default is even limited to 4 GB file
>> size.
>>
>> So? If the OS installer is unpacking any files larger than 4gb,
>> there is
>> something seriously wrong.
>
> Are you sure about the size of the Xorg binary in 5 years?
I don't think that a complete Xorg implementaion is that large at all.
However, you and I were chatting about these things and I think for now
the focus should be on the lower level issues like basic ON and utils and
a compiler.
>> > It has been shown already that pkgadd can be enhanced to use other
>> > archive types and I am strongly against introducing something new
>> > that is based n the outdated (since y-2001) CPIO.
>>
>> Using cpio in the installs is hardly new.
>
> I was replying to a person who proposed to use cpio for something new.
no.
Just .. no.
> I know that some people at Sun did like to use cpio because they rely on
> undocumented features in the Sun cpio implementation. I recommend to
> better
> use "star -install ..." as this is a documented feature that grants you to
> replace life existing binaries wihout a crash.
We both know that works very well and it is open and standards compliant.
About your issues with lint and b134. I was able to build b138 without too
much problem but I started incrementatlly from the last SXCE b130 and then
went to b134 and then b138. You have access to that server in the
Blastwave server farm and so you know this already. I install the
compilers into a somewhat non-standard path and then make a symlink hack
to adjust search paths. This has worked well for me.
Getting to b144 may be a challenge as I do not know what patch levels are
required or even what compiler to use. I will try with Sun Studio 12.1
with all latest patches. I have no idea why people use 12.1 when that
compiler is unable to build simple things like GNU make or libgcrypt
without blowing up on its own intermediate assembly[1] output but it seems
able to build ON. My disdain for Studio 12.1 not withstanding it does seem
to be the compiler to use.
--
Dennis
[1] I have seen this over and over and its just sad really.
/opt/studio/SOS12.1/SUNWspro/bin/cc -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -I. \
-I../../../../libgcrypt-1.4.6/cipher -I.. -I../src \
-I../../../../libgcrypt-1.4.6/src -I/opt/csw/include \
-I/opt/csw/include -m64 -xarch=sse2 -erroff=%all -g -nofstore \
-Qy -Xa -xbuiltin=%none -xmodel=medium -xnolibmil -xnolibmopt \
-Kpic -xildoff -xregs=no%frameptr -xs -xstrconst \
-D_TS_ERRNO -c ../../../../libgcrypt-1.4.6/cipher/cipher.c \
-fPIC -DPIC -o .libs/cipher.o
Assembler:
"/tmp/yabeAAAmcaq8V", line 5753 : Syntax error
Near line: " movl %eax"
"/tmp/yabeAAAmcaq8V", line 5831 : Syntax error
Near line: " movl %eax"
"/tmp/yabeAAAmcaq8V", line 5915 : Syntax error
Near line: " movl %eax"
"/tmp/yabeAAAmcaq8V", line 6016 : Syntax error
Near line: " movl %eax"
"/tmp/yabeAAAmcaq8V", line 6114 : Syntax error
Near line: " movl %eax"
"/tmp/yabeAAAmcaq8V", line 6191 : Syntax error
Near line: " movl %eax"
"/tmp/yabeAAAmcaq8V", line 6275 : Syntax error
Near line: " movl %eax"
"/tmp/yabeAAAmcaq8V", line 6376 : Syntax error
Near line: " movl %eax"
"/tmp/yabeAAAmcaq8V", line 6561 : Syntax error
Near line: " movl %edx, "
Failure in /opt/sunstudio12.1/prod/bin/fbe, status = 0x7f00
Fatal Error exec'ing /opt/sunstudio12.1/prod/bin/fbe
cc: acomp failed for ../../../../libgcrypt-1.4.6/cipher/cipher.c
gmake[2]: *** [cipher.lo] Error 1
gmake[2]: Leaving directory
`/export/medusa/dclarke/build/libgcrypt/i386/1.4.6/amd64_SOS12.1_try2/cipher'
gmake[1]: *** [all-recursive] Error 1
gmake[1]: Leaving directory
`/export/medusa/dclarke/build/libgcrypt/i386/1.4.6/amd64_SOS12.1_try2'
gmake: *** [all] Error 2
This is nothing new to me. Studio 12 works but 12.1 fails in so many ways
in so many places it is just scary.
GCC 4.x works fine.
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
